creative-commons or infinite monkeys typing

Wikipedia is rebuffing the take-down requests of a nature photographer, who after leaving his camera disguised in the jungle to capture images of macaques of Indonesia discovered that the monkey had discovered the hidden device and took hundreds of selfies.
Since the images have gone viral, the photographer hoped to earn something in the form of royalties or at least recognition and became rather irked when the images became part of Wikipedia's open collection. Demands that the pictures be removed and relegated to the nature photographer were rejected by the public encyclopedia, reasoning that the monkeys were the authors of the collection and it would be their decision if the material remained in the public-domain or not. US statute, which Wikipedia cites and most editors agree with, states that non-human authors have no automatic expectation of attribution and so such material defaults to be released to public-domain. What do you think of this legal battle, this copy-fight? The photographer did go through a lot of trouble and expensive to set up this photo-booth but maybe the macaque also knew what he was creating.

gentrification or the YUN ones

The Daily Beast featured recently a bitter-sweet and thought-provoking interview and profile of a blogger who is passionately documented the death-knells of a great metropolis. New York City is being summarily and quickly terraformed into a suburban-idyll, a playground acceptable to American Mid-Western standards and values and is being turned away from its eclectic identity.

The main reasons behind this lamentable, and frustratingly unstoppable, transformation is clearly exponentially high rents that price not only residents but also small shops out of the market, with only monied franchises to act as place-holders and no real anchors of the community—plus the leadership of Gotham over the last decade that helped to sanitize the landscape and insert comfortable order. It is a warning, years in the making but accelerating exponentially, that other great cities failed to heed, like London, Paris and the larger cities of Germany, too, that are quickly becoming unlivable and sacrificing their character and drive, despite the hard lessons of the property-bubble and subsequent burst, tendered by the same conditions. There is another less flattering contributor to this change that is not easy to address: inheriting the success of the Yuppies, the Young Urban Narcissists (YUNs) are pleased to have this backdrop for their curricula vitarum without dealing with the grittiness and reminders of bootstrapping and failure that do not belong in the picture. What do you think? Is a balance possibly for urban blight? The blogger, though angry and sad to see this charm slip away, has no plans to leave because he also has the chance to find those redeeming malingerers.

wolfssegen oder an der grenze

Derived from the same Latin root as the Roman Limes—the border of the frontier and furthest reaches of the empire, a liminal being is one that is on the perimeter and stays back and forth between more comfortable and familiar categories, and defies easy classification. Limen—or liminal points—are the terms for the threshold of mental or physical sensation, those disappearingly small perceptions that are just on the edge of the senses or awareness and a gauge for dismissing what one may have just imagined. Such beings partake of two, usually opposed, states and are stock-characters of folklore and fantasy, from chimera and hybrid creatures, part human, part beast, to vampires, zombies and other ghouls, neither alive nor dead—even to cyborgs and thinking-machines and the uncanniness that surrounds them.
Equally curious is the repulsion and attraction that normal humans have to them, whether classic and reputable or new and novel. Wolfssegener, Wolf Charmers, are ancient professionals—probably dating back to prehistory—and were quite respected in villages, like the figure of a shaman or witch-doctor, for keeping themselves and livestock safe from wolf-raids. Once Europe was taken by the mania of witch-trials in the late Middle Ages, however, Wolf-Charmers were persecuted as werewolves themselves. Such hysteria is a cyclical occurrence and happens in all cultures, and for all the attention that this chapter has received, it may not even be the most wide-spread maker of monsters (NDSAP propagandists in 1930s and 1940s framed the historic witch-hunts as a conspiracy to destroy Aryan womanhood, and even the early and revival witch-trials differed significantly in character—the former more concerned with practitioners currying unfair advantage over their neighbours with magic and the latter having more to do with social-order and the anarchy caused by being in league with the Devil). As in Medieval Europe, coping with the stresses of societal change—those forces which push the limits of what we perceive as normal and normative, which included the dawn of the Age of Exploration, the Reformation and counter-movements, seem to compel populations to create, designate liminal status.

time-capsule or animal reservoir/arthopod vector

Searching for something else (because a query on a specific illness raises all sort of alarms from the health authorities that mine deeply into such thing for the sake of public health and tracking the drift of disease), I came across an interesting training module, from April of 2009, which curiously captured the sentiment and official disposition of an exercise in outbreaks a few years hence.

A government sanctioned primer on Ebola and other insidious hemorrhagic viral infections, with doctors as its intended audience, devoted quite a lot of the lessons to the subject of biological warfare and how laboratories formerly under the control of the Soviet Union could be easily compromised and stocks of deadly viruses could be released. There was a spate of citations on how the Soviets had successfully weaponised the Marburg virus and a similar aerosol method could be used for Ebola. Such were the fears, however packaged (I could not find an updated version), when a whole barnyard of flues were passing through and no there are no such provocative musings, despite the blackballing and demonising of Russia, and like speculation is limited to local witchdoctors and a lingering distrust of Western-sponsored aid-stations. A cold-comfort that was also often repeated throughout this syllabus was the fact that the stigmata of bleeding out of every orifice rarely resulted in enough blood-loss to be fatal—never mind that the integrity of one's vascular system had degraded to such a point.

d'oc or au contraire

Continuing my want for accompaniment and stares in stopped traffic—of which there is a good deal of and part of my motivation, although it’s getting harder and harder to tell blathering to one’s self from blathering to someone far distance or shouting orders at one’s communication devices but perhaps the call and response pace of a foreign language audio-textbook looks less than natural, during my commute—which sometimes can take a significant amount of time, I try to recite at least the introductory lessons of the library’s collection.
I am preparing for our next vacation and always figure it is worth risking a little confusion or letting something learnt expire in the meantime due to disuse to exercise the mouth. I think American English especially is not a very enunciative one and the work-out and exaggeration are necessary for any progress—whatever might stick during these sessions, since I am paying more attention to the road. I knew the German interjection Doch! for really or uh-huh, but while listening to the parallel structured lessons, I learned that the come-back phrase is really a formal and polite contradiction of a question framed in the negative, akin to yes indeed.
The French equivalent is si as opposed to the usually oui, which I never appreciated before. Both languages have two ways of saying yes and one word (form) for no.   English, it turns out, once utilized four forms that followed this pattern and were appropriate responses, depending on how the question was posed—yes/no for negative questions and yea/nay for positive ones:
Will she not stay? Yes, she will.
Will he not go? No, he will not.
Will she stay?  Yea, she will.
Will he go? Nay, he will not.